Funny how things work out. I just posted in the GDT that I think Garrison must read HF

I thought that was easily his best game as a canuck. I didn't actually see the third, but after watching the first two periods, I'm not suprised to see him involved in the offence. I thought he still looked slow back to the puck on a few occasions and he really struggles on the end boards turning to find a play. He had an opportunity on the PK to turn and make an easy clear and instead he opted to ring it around where Goligoski kept it in. This might be a weakness in his game, but tonight he continued to show that he is quite capable in coverage and positions himself well to deny passes and rebound opportunities around his net. Also, probably my biggest complaint regarding his play has been that he is very slow to follow the play up. I don't necessarily mean joining rushes, I just mean supporting the play. Tonight, he was much much better at this. Twice in the first period, there were examples where our forwards lost the puck in the neutral zone and he was there to play it in deep so we could get a forecheck on. On one occasion, he was up with the play with the Sedins and since Burrows had filled in behind, he was the first one in on the forecheck. It didn't necessarily work out, but he was in a position to make a play where most of the season, he is hanging well back unable to contribute. I thought the goal was a bit of a SNAFU. There's a number of things that led to it, Booth is late coming back on his man, Schroeder loses Ryder when the rebound comes out, and Ballard overplays the man to the outside leaving Garrison 2 on 1 down low, and ultimately, the goalie probably needs to have that one. There's really no play for him here.

There's still some clunky bits to his game, but he looked a lot more like a $4.6m guy tonight. Hopefully he can bring this kind of game consistently.

I said before the game, finally! these are the pairings i wanted to see.

You can't have your top guys trying to fit in places they dont belong, you do that with the fringe guys like Ballard. Ballard is going to somewhat struggle in our system anyway. If he can find a way to make the right side fit, we're golden

Edler needs a solid defensive partner and hamhuis and bieksa belong together, who cares about their start

Nice to see Garrison getting his shot off and on net, hopefully this goal gives him a little more confidence and he keeps it up!

Edit--

Oh also want to add it that I noticed Ballard was a bit sloppy at times and Garrison did a real good job covering for him tonight

No one is singling out Garrison here. The thread was about Garrison so that is why he is getting talked about here. If you want to start a thread on Bieksa or Hamhuis or someone else then go ahead. This thread is about Garrison and that's why he gets talked about in this thread. How hard is that to understand???

No one here is glossing over the play of so-called "known culprits" but is simply trying to isolate the discussion to the topic at hand - Garrison. Indeed, I see very little glossing over of anyone's play ( I haven't). Instead people are only trying to bring back the focus back to the point of the discussion - Garrison.

And it makes no sense to justify the play of Garrison based on the poor play of others. If you are doing a bad job at school or work then it senseless to say well others are doing worse when its your body of work under inspection. If you think Garrison is playing well then you need to point where and how he is. You need to base it on the merits of his play not on the lack of success of others.

I and others have tired to point to specific areas where we believe Garrison is not looking good. You need to do the same. Don't tell us how Bieksa is playing bad but instead tell us where Garrison is doing well. How hard is that to understand?

I have agreed with you (mostly) on how he doesn't "look" good right now. Choppy stride, slow to react etc... I don't agree with you on how this pertains to his effectiveness. Nor do I agree that a buyout is even a consideration at this point.

Here's what's "hard to understand": Everyone is looking like crap. Yet context doesn't matter? How is it that Garrison looking like crap = buyout, other people look like crap = meh? It makes no sense. You cannot disregard environment. It must be taken into account. From there you can isolate, but not to the exclusion of, otherwise your analysis lacks perspective.

Quote:

And don't start in with some ad hominen attack that the other person is ignorant of Garrison back ground or is irrational or biased. Deal with the substance of what the person is saying. Defend your position by saying where the other person is wrong in their description of Garrison's play. And I think people really have tried to go into depth on things they see as poor play. In fairness, you need to do the same.

To suggest I or others have some built in dislike or prejudice against Garrison is juvenile and totally unsupported by you. It's just a way of trying to taint another person's opinion without having to deal with what they are saying. I want nothing that the best for Garrison and hope he excels here. But when he doesn't IMO, I'm not going to pretend he has done well.

Your opinion is "tainted" because it's full of bias. It's not a built in dislike that makes it biased, it's refusal to judge others by the same standard that you apply to Garrison. It's also a disregard for the environment.

Ad hominem = head stuck in the sand, married to their opinions, difficulty understanding. Which of these things has to do with the player and not the poster? Or is hypocrisy OK?

I don't have to defend his play on "looks". I'd rather talk about his effectiveness. If you want, I can provide some context as to his actual effectiveness per stats. Such as his penchant for being a positive possession player, while taking the 2nd toughest minutes on the squad (.820 CRelQoC, 5.98 Corsi with 56%Ozone starts). Or him finding a way to keep the puck out of dangerous areas even if he screws up. Or his constant covering for Bieksa/Edler. Or his strength in front of the net. Stickwork etc... Yes, he has to get quicker and gets pinned in battles because of it. But that stuff pales in comparison as to how he's trusted to keep the puck out of the net.

Quote:

As far as the buy out option is concerned I would repeat that I'm very glad the buy out has become an option. This is very long term contract and if Garrison continues to play like he is then there has to be questions whether the team can carry him at his long term cap hit. This is no different than the concern with Ballard's contract going into the season. Much of that concern has been eased by the play of Ballard much as the concern about Garrison's long term contract could be if he improves his play. This is no wild, overly passionate reaction but simply a reasonable consideration given Garrison play to this point and the tight conditions created by the new CBA. The team must avoid bloated or bad contracts going ahead and IMO Garrison's contract might become that.

As I have stated I certainly haven't come to the conclusion that Garrison must be bought out. But his, like other contracts (such as Booth) where the person is playing well below expectations created by the size of their contracts, needs to to be discussed.

You may say that Garrison is showing himself fully deserving of his contract. You may think he looking like a great pick up and a real bargain. But you need to show this not by making alibis, not be putting down other players and not by attacking the credibility of people with an opposite opinion. Instead you need to show how Garrison is playing well and is fair value for his contract based on his play.

I see it as a wild reaction given the information we have to date. 13 games in, and buyout consideration? Yes, that is completely reasonable...

I know that it is your opinion that Garrison's contract may become an albatross. I just think there is no merit to an opinion that is formed after 13 games of poor Canuck hockey. The mere discussion about it is absurd IMO.

Again, I don't need to show anything. It's been 13 games. Fans should learn to be patient enough, especially given this management's history, not to jump to extreme conclusions or even considerations after such a short time.

Beach Clean I don't know how hard this is to get across but the reason we are talking about Garrison here is because this thread is about Garrison.

If you want to have a discussion comparing the different defensemen then make a separate thread.

You say I'm biased because I put down Garrison but don't put down others or hold them to the same standard. That might have some validity if the point of the thread was some general discussion about the Canuck defensemen. But the point of the thread is to discuss Garrison as player - not Garrison relative to others. That is simply changing the topic

If the topic was a comparison of defensemen then I would say several of the Canuck defenseman have had some pretty rough games and rightfully have come in for some criticism. But I think illogical to say that the play of others somehow makes poor play by Garrison acceptable.

Also, you talk l about over-blown statement but then say that "everyone is looking like crap". First, if this was really true the team would not have anything like the record it has. Yes, there have been periods of poor play by the defensemen but there have also been some very good play. Second, I guess if everyone is looking like crap then Garrison is looking like crap. This kind of defeats all your statistical analysis that tries to suggest Garrison is playing well. Can you see the contradiction???

I did not see all the game tonight so it is hard to be too definitive but from what I saw I agree with those who think Garrison played better. He seemed to really be trying to get up in the play and provide support. I think he could have jumped a little quicker on Ryder on the second goal but I did think he was reacting better to situations than in previous games.

I hope that Garrison forces me to eat my words and that he starts to fulfill the hopes the Canucks have here. But I think up to this point the criticism of Garrison and the worries about his contract are absolutely justified.

I have agreed with you (mostly) on how he doesn't "look" good right now. Choppy stride, slow to react etc... I don't agree with you on how this pertains to his effectiveness. Nor do I agree that a buyout is even a consideration at this point.

Beach Clean I don't know how hard this is to get across but the reason we are talking about Garrison here is because this thread is about Garrison.

If you want to have a discussion comparing the different defensemen then make a separate thread.

Sorry Orca, just not getting it. Can't understand why context doesn't matter. I could leave the discussion of other Dmen out, but I won't, because it matters. It offers perspective of Garrison's current environment. You not liking it is irrelevant. I'm talking about Jason Garrison as a cog of the Vancouver Canucks. That includes him, and others, and how fits, relative to others.

But perhaps it's who it's coming from that bothers you, so here's another way of putting it that might get through:

Quote:

Originally Posted by opendoor

Honestly, as long as guys like Hamhuis and Bieksa are playing like trash I'm having a hard time getting too worried about Garrison's play so far. The defense as a whole still isn't anywhere near up to par and he's just one part of it.

Really, how would people have felt about Hamhuis if he'd just signed here in the offseason and all we'd seen of him on the team was his season to date?

better?

Quote:

You say I'm biased because I put down Garrison but don't put down others or hold them to the same standard. That might have some validity if the point of the thread was some general discussion about the Canuck defensemen. But the point of the thread is to discuss Garrison as player - not Garrison relative to others. That is simply changing the topic

If the topic was a comparison of defensemen then I would say several of the Canuck defenseman have had some pretty rough games and rightfully have come in for some criticism. But I think illogical to say that the play of others somehow makes poor play by Garrison acceptable.

It doesn't make it acceptable, it makes it understandable. Right now, the play of the entire defense is unacceptable based on prior standards, but until all the other pieces right their games, we can't fully infer how "off" Garrison is in his game. There's Garrison "the player" and then there's Garrison "the player among players". Both his ability and his ability within the context of the group matters. Overall, it gives us the complete picture. Notice that I have not refrained on giving an analysis of Garrison's play itself, it's just that I include the context, which you have failed to do.

Quote:

Also, you talk l about over-blown statement but then say that "everyone is looking like crap". First, if this was really true the team would not have anything like the record it has. Yes, there have been periods of poor play by the defensemen but there have also been some very good play. Second, I guess if everyone is looking like crap then Garrison is looking like crap. This kind of defeats all your statistical analysis that tries to suggest Garrison is playing well. Can you see the contradiction???

So somehow saying that the top4 has struggled/looked like crap is akin to calling for a buyout on a newly signed player 13 games in? Not that I want to get into this line of reasoning because it's irrelevant, but the hyperbole is still clearly with you. It remains with you. It's was a poor statement at a poor time. But hey, I'm not going to even get into it further than that so whatever.

I put those numbers up to show you that looks can be deceiving. Which actually plays into the team still winning, despite the hand-wringing about the players. Be it Garrison or others. You tried to make your buyout argument based on the "look" of Garrison. Remember? That he is appearing to struggle. I agreed that he looked awkward out there, but my analysis extends beyond that to include context and objective statistics. It's why I'm not calling for a buyout. Plus, you know, the fact that it's only been 14 games without a proper training camp... That too. Basically, I'm saying that your analysis lacked context and objectivity. The numbers bear that out. Now your only course of action is to prove that the "look" of a player (to which I have also provided my account) is more relevant than his effectiveness and is context. Good luck.

Quote:

I did not see all the game tonight so it is hard to be too definitive but from what I saw I agree with those who think Garrison played better. He seemed to really be trying to get up in the play and provide support. I think he could have jumped a little quicker on Ryder on the second goal but I did think he was reacting better to situations than in previous games.

I hope that Garrison forces me to eat my words and that he starts to fulfill the hopes the Canucks have here. But I think up to this point the criticism of Garrison and the worries about his contract are absolutely justified.

14 games in, limited camp, new team, everyone struggling, underlying stats, history of the team working with players (Ballard) etc... is a direct indictment on your comments. They were, and remain, unjustified.

It's not about making you eat your words, it's about having patience and not uttering an extreme statement until you see things play out first...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verviticus

can you please please please

stop

posting

like

this

Would you rather I type gargantuan paragraphs? I space things out so it's easier to read for others. What would you suggest I change? Are others having trouble reading my posts?

It's interesting and last night was certainly a promising start for that look. I had been saying since before last season that Ballard was the guy who made most sense for a switch to the right side. And was also suggesting this summer that Ballard could be a good fit alongside Garrison, as he's about the closest thing we have to a player like Campbell who Garrison clearly clicked with. Campbell skated Garrison out of a lot of trouble last year, and if Ballard can continue his standard of play this year and switch to the right side while doing it...there's the potential for his outstanding skating to help Garrison out in much the same way. Looking forward to seeing how the two of them do against a really 'opportunistic' team like the Preds tonight.

The problem is...while it's fine for this year, moving forward with an $8.8M 'bottom-pairing' is awfully tough to stomach.

It's interesting and last night was certainly a promising start for that look. I had been saying since before last season that Ballard was the guy who made most sense for a switch to the right side. And was also suggesting this summer that Ballard could be a good fit alongside Garrison, as he's about the closest thing we have to a player like Campbell who Garrison clearly clicked with. Campbell skated Garrison out of a lot of trouble last year, and if Ballard can continue his standard of play this year and switch to the right side while doing it...there's the potential for his outstanding skating to help Garrison out in much the same way. Looking forward to seeing how the two of them do against a really 'opportunistic' team like the Preds tonight.

The problem is...while it's fine for this year, moving forward with an $8.8M 'bottom-pairing' is awfully tough to stomach.

I think it was mentioned that that pairing only played a bit less than the other 2, so it's not as big of a difference as it may seem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanucksOo

Also per Murph, they were a d-pair for around 20 games in Florida.

Interesting... perhaps Ballard also played the right side then? If he can adjust his game to the right moving forward we could have solved our playing-side issue with the D.

So perhaps he had the ability to switch over, but it was more an issue of him getting used to the systems here first. In any case, it's great to see the progression that he's made this year. If he can adapt fully to the right side then he becomes that much more valuable to the D-corps.

So perhaps he had the ability to switch over, but it was more an issue of him getting used to the systems here first. In any case, it's great to see the progression that he's made this year. If he can adapt fully to the right side then he becomes that much more valuable to the D-corps.

Or it was all a big secret. , seriously yo, Ballard and Garrison have Hamjuice type chemistry.

Just want to add something In here. I've see in a recent interview about Ballard that he and Tanev would watch videos of there shifts and break down what to do in situations. I also remember an interview with Bieksa last season saying how him and Hamhuis did do any of that and they just have a natural chemistry. Any way, just speculating that it may help Garrison to have a guy like Ballard as a pairing, to help adjust to what to do, then to have a Bieksa type.